This video was uploaded over a month ago, I'm not sure when it was actually filmed. Before we get to it, I'm with the National Cancer Institute and the Interphone study. The epidemiological data shows no dose response relationship on the human organism level. It's possible that brain cancers are occurring below the epidemiological statistical threshold, but since the number of cases is so low, the excess has to be very low as well. Unlike ionizing radiation, there isn't any underlying mechanistic understanding of a pathway leading to carcinogenesis. We may one day find one, however, but even so, it would have to be very weakly carcinogenic (otherwise the epidemiological studies would show increased incidence).
So what is up with Dr. Devra Davis? Let's dig in!:
I had never heard of her, but she has an impressive resume. She starts out with a couple of anecdotal cases of cancer. I don't know why someone who is an epidemiologist would do that. She mentions some obscure people she's working with in other countries...reminds me of the anti-nuclear energy ideologues who attach themselves to certain Russian "scientists".
So now I'm thinking she is Caldicottesque.....I wonder if she has a book? Well, she does and here's a review. Surprise! Full of anecdotes! And does she want donations? YES!
Very Caldicottesque, indeed!
In the video she claims it is the intermittance (erratic nature) of the microwaves that makes them damaging. Then she says we're is a state of homeostasis and the cell phone "signal" disturbs it. We just can't observe the effect, but that doesn't matter, she's chasing a "belief".
"What will this mean for our planet? We have grave concerns!"
Does Helen Caldicott have an American relative?
She goes on about SAR's (Specific Absorption Rate - energy per unit body mass) and cell phone warnings. The warnings are based on the possibility of a carcinogenic effect...but it isn't great if it exists. She tries to infer that the industry knows their products are carcinogenic and are issuing small print warnings to relieve themselves of liability.
She tells us about industry-biased studies and then in the next breathe says that her organization (donations please!) convened a conference in
(From this point, she seems to lay off some of the fear-mongering, losing some of her Caldicottesqueness)
Then there was another study about hair root damage from cell phones, which also requires payment. Funny, but it showed a 30 min exposure was worse than a 15 min one, in contradiction to what Davis had said earlier about dose response.
Study cherry-picking continues, typically on a cellular level, and she boils it down to the conclusion that observable effects may manifest in the future. Ok, we can study some more, but that's no reason for grave concerns. Still, a bit less fear-mongering than her website and book pushes, maybe it's because she expects her audience (NIEHS) won't buy into too much of that.
It becomes obvious with all the studies she mentions that she is looking for a problem, which doesn't manifest significantly in reality. And many of the problems she lists regarding studies that don't support her bias are only partially true. For example, some studies do use different cell types (than those showing an observable, detrimental effect), while others use the same. There are gazillions of studies on this subject. (The sperm study also showed a dose response. HA!)
Davis wants to dictate where cell towers are located but she really hasn't provided any evidence of any real harmful effect. That doesn't mean everything is "fine", but certainly not grave and probably not unsafe (in the common, traditional sense of the word).
No comments:
Post a Comment